Illustrative review record and decision

This is a constructed example of how to resolve reviews, not evidence that multiple models were actually run. The runnable tests provide separate mechanical evidence; this record is for editorial demonstration of review judgement.

Change: intake request slice (hypothetical review of the reference design)

Finding	Reviewer perspective	Proposed concern	Resolution method	Disposition
R-01	Adversarial	Same key, different payload might silently replace a request	Run conflicting duplicate test and inspect store mutation	Covered by contract and test in reference slice
R-02	Architecture	A web adapter could bypass RequestStore and write storage directly	Inspect dependencies of actual adapter	Not applicable to teaching slice; future integration gate
R-03	Evidence	Audit writing and request persistence might not be atomic	Examine transaction boundary and simulate event failure	Real production gap; must be designed before release
R-04	Product	Idempotency proves reliable intake but does not establish demand	Conduct task-based customer evaluation	Product validation remains outstanding
R-05	Performance	In-memory store uses a lock; scaling behaviour unknown	Load/concurrency checks on production adapter	Not a defect in the teaching demo; release risk

Why this matters

Two or three models could all describe R-03 as “probably fine”. That would not make it safe. Conversely, an agent might invent a problem that contradicts the contract; a small test can settle the dispute more directly than further generated argument.

Independent reviewers help us find questions. Tests, inspections, product observations and accountable decisions help us answer them.